The McHenry County Zoning Board of Appeals on Oct. 28 continued a hearing on a proposed ECA Solar community array after the developer and a certified arborist reviewed a tree survey and answered extensive board questions about woodland impacts, shading and site engineering.

Ben Dykema of ECA Solar and Sarah Spronsky, a certified arborist with Kimmy Warren, presented a tree inventory and mitigation ideas. Spronsky told the board the survey was limited to the areas proposed for clearing and used ANSI A300 and International Society of Arboriculture standards to assess species and condition. She said the inventory covered 512 trees in the disturbance area and that “the majority of the trees that were surveyed for this specific project…were most of them were of lower quality disturbance tolerant species such as boxelder, black walnut, black cherry.”

Spronsky testified that 12 of the surveyed trees were 12 inches DBH or greater, and that 32 oaks and hickories were below the 12‑inch diameter‑at‑breast‑height threshold the county uses as a marker for older savanna trees. She said most trees in the clearing band were edge, disturbance‑tolerant species and that relatively intact woodland stands lie farther east of the proposed array footprint.

Board members pressed the applicant on why trees in several locations — including a roughly rectangular cluster of about 10–11 oaks in the southern portion of the array — must be removed. Dykema and Spronsky said the removals were driven chiefly by shading concerns: the array’s production is sensitive to persistent shade along panel rows, and the project’s fixed procurement and a 20‑foot height limit constrain options to raise panels or swap to materially different modules at this stage. Dykema also confirmed a 50‑foot ANR pipeline easement on the western side that constrains siting.

Engineering and drainage questions drew sustained attention. Board members and staff asked about a low‑lying blue area on the plan, pile length and foundation alternatives, and whether trackers could be adapted to avoid ponding. The applicants said tracker assemblies maintain roughly 3 feet of ground clearance at their lowest tilt and that flood sensors and stow protocols exist but that flood and wind events create competing safety tradeoffs. The team said longer piles or concrete footings are possible in theory but quickly become cost‑prohibitive and complicate maintenance.

The project team also said it had commissioned an ECOCAD/IDNR screening that identified state‑listed resources of concern, including the Blanding’s turtle and the rusty‑patched bumblebee, and described standard mitigation steps and wildlife‑friendly fencing (e.g., openings to allow turtle movement). The team said more detailed IDNR consultation and contractor guidance would be part of construction best practices if the project proceeds.

Environmental Defenders of McHenry County’s Water and Natural Resources Protection Action Team chair Cindy Skripner urged the board to minimize tree removal. “Defenders are strong proponents of clean energy, but we want to see any project be done in a manner that also protects our water and natural resources,” she said, asking for specific ID numbers and condition ratings for oaks and hickories identified for removal.

The arborist acknowledged a data‑entry error in an earlier report (one tree labeled 125 DBH was actually 12 inches) and said the inventory rose from 500 to 512 trees after the team extended the buffer to capture edge trees. Spronsky estimated — without coring or cutting — that a named larger red oak (tree 456 in the survey) could be roughly 60–80 years old based on canopy form, but she did not provide a precise age.

Board and staff members asked for more exact production‑loss modeling if trees are left in place, clearer mapping tying tree IDs to site plan locations, a more specific post‑clearing vegetation management plan (mechanical mowing, stump grinding, chemical controls if necessary), and concrete mitigation proposals such as reforestation or use of a savanna seed mix under panels. The applicant said such mitigation options are under consideration and that detailed design could explore re‑routing a long southern array “finger” or adjusting row lengths, but that some constraints — lease lines, the ANR easement, low areas and pending IDOT access approval — limit flexibility.

No final action was taken. The board agreed to continue the hearing and reconvene at 1:30 p.m. on Dec. 3, 2025 to allow the applicant to return with specific recommendations, additional maps tying tree IDs to locations, production‑impact analyses and proposed mitigation measures. The continuance was announced on the record.

The continuation means the board will still need to resolve how to apply site‑design element e (minimize impacts to woodlands) against site‑design element f (ecological benefits of native planting beneath panels) and whether proposed mitigation or design changes are sufficient to meet county standards.